SANTIAGO v. NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY PORT AUTHORITY et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/14/16. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 2:11-cv-04254 (WJM)
NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY PORT
AUTHORITY, et al.,
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Enid Santiago moves for an extension of time to appeal this Court’s
March 22, 2016 Order granting summary judgment against her and dismissing her
Complaint. Defendants – the New York and New Jersey Port Authority and six of its
individual officers – oppose Plaintiff’s motion. There was no oral argument. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
In July 2011, Plaintiff filed her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint against Defendants.
ECF doc. 1. On March 22, 2016, this Court entered an Order granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF doc. 98.
Plaintiff had 30 days, until April 21, 2016, to appeal this Order. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal. ECF doc. 99.
On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a notice of
appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). ECF doc. 101. Plaintiff’s
counsel has explained that his secretary incorrectly assumed that March was a 30-day
month, causing her to mark April 22, 2016 as the deadline to file an appeal. Defendants
oppose the motion.
In a civil case, a party must file a notice of appeal “within 30 days after the entry
of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also Benn v.
First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 237 (3d Cir. 2005) (the timely filing of a notice
of appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). District courts have discretion to grant an
extension of time to file notice of appeal if: (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days
after the time to appeal expires; and (ii) that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). In determining whether a party has demonstrated excusable
neglect, courts weigh four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-movant; (2) the
length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the
delay including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4)
whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick
Associates Limited Partnership 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); In Re Diet Drugs Product
Litigation, 401 F.3d 153-54 (3d Cir. 2005). The determination of what constitutes
excusable neglect is at bottom an equitable one. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion because: (i) Plaintiff moved for an
extension of time within the requisite time period; and (ii) Plaintiff has demonstrated
excusable neglect under Pioneer.
First, Defendants are not meaningfully prejudiced by Plaintiff’s single-day delay
in filing a notice of appeal. See Harley v. Geithner, 2010 WL 5418902, at *2 (D.N.J.
Dec. 23, 2010) (“the addition of a single extra day would not seem to unreasonably add ...
prejudice to Defendant”). Second, the overall length of Plaintiff’s delay is negligible –
the notice of appeal was filed a day late, and the request for an extension of time was well
with the deadline to do so.
Third, counsel’s secretary’s calendaring error, while well “within the reasonable
control of the movant,” is not the result of professional incompetence or procrastination
but rather, “minor neglect.” Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Larson, 827 F.2d
916, 919 (3d Cir. 1987). The firm’s internal procedures were not deficient; rather, a staff
member inadvertently committed a simple human error. Compare Sugarbaker v. SSM
Health Care, 187 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding excusable neglect when an
attorney attempted to comply with a deadline but miscalculated and filed the request one
day late), with Ragguette v. Premier Wines & Spirits, 691 F.3d 315, 328 (3d Cir. 2012)
(no excusable neglect where attorney was personally responsible for breakdown in firm’s
internal procedures). And counsel acted diligently in seeking to cure the defect, applying
for an extension of time immediately upon learning of his error. See Consol., 827 F.2d at
919. Fourth, the Court can detect no evidence of bad faith here: no tactical advantage
was achieved through this delay, and counsel readily acted to correct the mistake. After
balancing the equities, the Court has determined that an extension is warranted.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is
GRANTED. An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: July 14th, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?